Theater reviews: When readers talk back

There are some rules that apply, of course. We tell people to refrain from personal attacks and obscenities when commenting online. I've written several requests on my blog asking people to focus on the production and the performances -- not the personalities of the performers. I'm willing to take just about any matter of abuse directed at me as the critic, but when posters start attacking other posters, I have to step in sometimes. (And, alas, as any critic will tell you, some of the comments about me cross the line as well.)

None of this is new or comes as much of a surprise when you consider the culture of the Internet. We ask people to register for our site, and we ask for a name and email address when they're posting a comment, but there's nothing to stop people from making up either piece of information. Anonymity not only is assured online, the culture encourages it.

After a recent review of mine of a production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" by Fresno Musical Theaterworks, the community theater arm of Children's Musical Theaterworks of Fresno, the comments just kept coming. The thread has received more than 40 so far. A little back story is in order here: CMT is that typical story of an established company started by a visionary director (a very talented guy named Joel Abels) that's now in its second generation of leadership. Joel decided to pursue other interests after a decade of leading local non-profit theater, and the folks who took his place are following in some pretty big footsteps. Add to that the fact that most of those folks are parents and volunteers, and throw in some  pretty opinionated young people, and you've got the recipe for some pretty strong opinions.

Which is all fine and good. With a blog, there's a lot more opportunity for reader interaction, and the theater community has enthusiastically embraced the technology. Still, though, I've been reminded of some things:

Theater people can be very supportive, and they can also be downright bitchy. Should I approve a comment about an actor whose "ego precedes him on stage like a noxious cloud"? Or a  "whiny, thin-voiced wannabe"?  How about something that's backhanded mean: "He couldn't cut it as a professional actor, so he's back doing community theater"? At what point does the critique of a performance become a dig at the person playing the role?

Local is different than national. It's one thing to diss entertainment celebrities or presidential candidates. The atmosphere of the discourse around them already is rough and tumble. They get paid big bucks (or are vying for big power), and they can take the heat. But for local theater performers, being on stage might be their only time in the spotlight. Personal attacks and unjustified harsh criticism can deeply wound.

The anonymity thing really makes a difference. Who knows the motivation behind anyone who posts a comment? That person could be the actor who didn't get the part, for all you know. There will always be people who revel in the bullying  possibilities that result from being anonymous.

The immediacy of the Internet can drag down the level of discourse. I have a firm rule for myself when it comes to responding to emails that irritate me: I wait half an hour before sending a response. What you dash off in the heat of the moment can be unncecessarily inflammatory. If I still feel that strongly a half hour later, I compose a response that tones down the anger. Sometimes I'm surprised at the viciousness of obviously dashed-off posts. (Read the New York Times politics blogs recently?)

People have different writing abilities. A simple fact, but important. There are times that a skilled writer can take a supremely harsh tone against someone but phrase it so cleverly (and often so wittily) that the eloquence of the words makes you forget just how mean the comment is. Conversely, someone with lesser word skills might come across as clunky and brash ("I think that comment was dumb," for example, or "he's stupid,") and they're more apt to be deleted. I have to remember that the content is the important thing and to try not to discriminate against folks who aren't as sophisticated.

People crave feedback from me. I've found that the best approach on a thread that creates a lot of comments is to wait for a few days for some major themes/issues to materialize and then write a follow-up comment responding to them. This actually creates a tremendous amount of goodwill -- I can't tell you how many times people have told me they appreciate the fact that I simply read what they have to say. It's also a great way to educate readers. With the "Joseph" thread, for example, I used my response as an opportunity to explain the logistics of press previews and the fact that the producing organization is the one that determines when a show will be reviewed.

So what comments do I delete and which do I post? No hard and fast rules, but I'd say that 95% of them pass muster. (I'm continually amazed, actually, by the depth of insight of most of my readers.) My philosophy is that I'm moderating this forum, and that while I welcome everyone's right to self-expression, that right isn't absolute.

Most importantly, I have to keep in mind that just as in any city, a local theater community is made up of a tight-knit group of people who have likely fought with, slept with, competed against, been jealous of or given a kidney to each other. A vigorous theater blog can't be the electronic equivalent of a gossip grapevine. It has to serve theatergoers, so it shouldn't be so insider as to be coy and inaccessible.

And overall, I love the blog. I have to say that I'm impressed with how it can really boost reader interactivity as well. (It's also a good reminder to editors that intensive local arts coverage can boost readership and hit counts.) Instead of just throwing a review out there in print in a frozen form, posting it online and giving people the chance to comment reminds us that a review can merely be the start of an interesting conversation.